In Parshat Mishpatim, the Torah states: “If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep or goat, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five cattle in place of the ox, and four sheep in place of the sheep.” What is the reason for this difference between an ox and a sheep? Rashi quotes an explanation from Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai who said: Hashem had pity on people’s dignity. When the thief stole an ox which walks on its own feet, and therefore the thief was not humiliated by having to carry it away on his shoulders, he pays a fivefold payment. But when he stole a sheep, which he carries away on his shoulders, he pays only a fourfold payment, since he was humiliated by stealing it in this manner. We perhaps see from this that Hashem is concerned with and takes into account the feelings of even a person of this sort.
We might find a similar idea in our parsha to a much greater extent in regards to the mekalel, the one who committed the atrocious and severe sin of blaspheming Hashem. Until his sentence became known, the Torah states that, “They placed him under guard.” Rashi comments that although the incident of the mekoshesh (the man who gathered wood on Shabbat) occurred at the same time as the incident of the mekalel, they were not placed under guard together but instead the mekalel was placed separately. Rashi explains that the reason for this was because they knew that the mekoshesh was to receive the death penalty, whereas regarding the mekalel they did not know if he deserved the death penalty. The Siftei Chachamim seems to explain what Rashi intends to impart as follows: If the mekalel and mekoshesh were placed together, the mekalel would have thought that he would also receive the death penalty just like the mekoshesh and would have experienced anguish. Therefore, the mekalel was not placed together with the mekoshesh.
Rav Henach Leibowitz notes that the mekalel was a full-fledged wicked person, for the Daat Zekeinim teaches that the reason why they did not know if the mekalel deserved the death penalty was because since his sin was so egregious, they thought that perhaps he should not be punished with death in order that he should not thereby gain atonement for his sin. Additionally, as Rav Leibowitz seems to note further: The fact that they did not place the mekalel together with the mekoshesh and simply tell the mekalel that they did not know yet whether he would receive the death penalty (in an effort to dispel his anguish), shows that they were concerned that even if they would tell him this, the mekalel still might not believe them but instead think that the fact that he is placed together with the mekoshesh shows that he will receive the death penalty. Thus we see how concerned they were to protect the feelings of the mekalel. (see Chidushei HaLev, Emor 24:12).
From all the above we can perhaps learn the importance of developing sensitivity for people’s emotions and being concerned for their feelings.
Binyamin Benji is a graduate of Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan, and Wurzweiler School of Social Work.
